I came to this site to post the Lee Iacocca statement that Conis sent me. I challenge Squeaky, Troy, and the rest to actually READ all of it. You to, Jeff. I know Doug will...he's a lawyer and they read everything.

How many times does a person have to bang their head into a low branch before they trim it off? Democrats/Republicans is that low branch. The result, Jeff, is the same. Obama made $4.2 million dollars last year! I wish I made that much. But let's get real...he is going to represent me who makes 26 grand a year? (doing nothing, eh, eh, eh) Hillary and Billary make a $100 million a year and they "can feel your pain"? This is pure comedy. And what does John, "more wars, my friends, more wars," McCAin make with his young wife...is it over a 100 million? Please, let's laugh together, island brothers and sisters, cause man this is a big JOKE! None of us have enough money to PAY for this kind of comedy.

And all we have to do is bend over. Smiling is optional.

BUT WHATEVER YOU DO...DO NOT WASTE YOUR VOTE. VOTE FOR ONE OF THESE JOKERS AND PUT THAT PESKY CONSTITUTION WHERE IT BELONGS...

Am I being too cynical?_________________"Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got 'till it's gone.

This is a two party system. Oh sure any other parties can "also run/ran" but they don't stand a chance even with $$$$$$$$ like Perot had. You are in and connected/endorsed... or on the outside looking in. (Ron Paul)

So (just so you think this through).

You "vote"... EVEN IF YOU DO NOT GO TO POLL AND VOTE, or vote for an independent party which is like vote stealing.. If you DON'T VOTE, you are voting for whomever wins. The republicans have won a lot of elections because of poor voter turn out with disgusting dem candidates. Dems voters puke, don't go the polls out of disgust and frustration. Guess who wins by default?

Perot is a classic example: He presented himself as a viable electable third party candidate which pulled republican votes. He didn't win did he? But he put Clinton over the top. Had those who voted for Perot not voted republican out of disgust, the net effect would have been the same.

So, as usual, we get to vote not FOR an ideal candiate, but make a selection between bad and worse. Not voting for a candidate but against a proven loser.

I like to use the football team analogy: Two (bad) teams matched. Anything might happen. All of a sudden someone comes along and says "this is a bad game" drafts half the players from either team A or B.

Guess who wins? The team with the most players. The outcome will be the same if you say it ain't worth it and don't go to the game...

And sick as it is, voting is what we have and it all counts whether you cast a vote or not.

Vote, no vote 102
...and I agree with what you said, Conis. But what you said only makes sense if a voter thinks that one candidate is BETTER than the other. They are all sitting on the very, flat, bottom with the same amount of BS on top of all of them. A vote for a third party has no affect in this scenario. We get a bottom feeder...I voted for a legitimate candidate...the rest voted for a bottom feeder...and they will get what they voted for.

No protest vote. No anti-party vote. Just a vote, which is guaranteed by our constitution, for whomever I choose.

2nd amendment being discussed. Oh, boy, here we go._________________"Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got 'till it's gone.

TheeIslandgirl, join the antichrist, the sheeple, me, and everyone else for several beers at the tavern and I guarantee, we will all feel a lot better._________________"Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got 'till it's gone.

Lee represents a generation that had a different set of ideals than we have today. They were cautious with money, they bought things that last, they had savings accounts, they trusted people ( corporations and the government ).
Then they collided with us, the dot com, corporate raider, instant gratification, everyman for himself, walmart shopping ( with a "Union Yes" bumper sticker ), it's all about me generation.
Now their retirement investments are worth half, they can't afford their presciptions, respect for elders is on the downturn and their property taxes are more than their mortgage payments used to be,
They should be mad.

John Elmer my friend, by your logic, all bottom-feeding politicians are created equal. In my view, there are varying levels of fecal matter in the lower strata of the political spectrum. One must choose the lesser of the evils.

The danger in voting for a third-party candidate, or in not voting at all, is that the folks who support ignorant, brain-dead, ancient, war-mongering guys like McCain, don't waver. They are a very solid 30%, who would vote republican if the whole of the party was caught selling kiddie-porn and smoking crack cocaine. (Let alone destroying our country by weakening our military and our standing in the world, while selling us out to the drug companies and corporate America) 30% doesn't seem too frightening, until you take into account your typical everyday American's apathy and traditionally low voter turn-out. To sum up.......McCain's 30% will show up on election day. Do you want to be partially responsible for spreading the remaining votes around, so that McCain can clinch victory for the republicans once again? - I didn't think so._________________West End Piper

Thanks for redefining what I was trying to regurgitate. Not voting or casting a vote for a non viable candidate is exactly the same as voting for what may be the greater of two evils. I am sure McCain will welcome protest votes. Works for him. Perfectly in fact.

Unfortunately "voting" is the only recourse we have to affect change. Or Civil war and those are hard to whip up and usually don't end well?

Read back a few posts: I am employing the anti incumbent strategy. I don't care if they are R or D, if they are incumbent, I am voting against them from the drain comissioner on up. There is MY protest vote based on idealism. If the entire country did this, it wou;d not only render the government dysfunctional (which it already is) but possibly harmless since all the newbees couldn't agree on anything. Call it crowbar in the gears technique. If you can't beat em, confuse em by turning things inside out.

The last 25 years we have had control of the government by the Bushes and Clintons. Enough is enough is enough...

Well said Piper,
For those of you who think I'm alittle over the top with my comments.
(I'm not speaking for 3 putt) you dont have to.. I do a good job on my own.. When you loose your job and have to go back out a scratch and claw for a living because of the "coalition". You would get alittle pissed off also. Squeaky if your minister told you to drink the purple coolade on Sunday would you do it? I hope not.. Get a mind of your own. Your one Sunday away from talking just like those women whose kids were just takein from them in Texas. You sound just like them....BRAIN WASHED.
As for reading the bible I ALREADY READ THE SUNDAY COMICS.

It cannot be a coincidence that on the first day in 2008 that the boat is gonna run I can actually post the fact that I agree with much of what JEE and Conis and Piper and Kevin and Rich and Thee Island Girl just said. Heck, I even like the fact that 3Putt used a reference from a classic cartoon to make a political point (I regularly use the Simpsons to do just that). Not to mention that spring has finally sprung. Wow, what a day!

Concerning the Iacocca quote, I think it says a lot that is true (though, having said that, I wonder how much of it is what he said and how much was added--the encouragment to pass on his words to others made me suspicious.)

As Rich said, I think the problem in America goes deeper then our corporate and union and political leaders. In a nutshell, in a nation increasingly filled with people who watch Jerry Springer and the thousand judge-whoever shows and all that reality tv--especially the shows that try to humiliate and destroy people (and FOX is the biggest culprit these days), where web pornography is the biggest biz on the web, where many have trouble logically reasoning from A to B let alone A to Z--why would we think that these folks are gonna cry out for leaders who have courage, integrity, etc? That is, why would it even occur to them to say 'enough is enough' or, as the guy in the old movie Network said, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!" I get really angry when I read about the Hedge Fund Manager who is making 3 billion dollars a year and I get really angry with those who don't understand how turning a blind eye to illegal immigration is going to destroy the rule of law in the US. But for political reasons, the GOP won't do much about the former and the Dems won't do much about the latter.

The American people have to a large extent lost their way and, as a result, have leaders in every walk of life that they, if not deserve, are responsible for putting into positions of authority.

Having said all that, I do think that Network quote--which I believe is from the late 70s, also provides some perspective and maybe even comfort. To paraphrase (and slightly distort) the words of the great Bob Dylan, 'the times they are a-challengin.' It has always been and will always be so. The challenges may change but they are always there. The question is how do we respond to them?

JEE, as much as I respect the integrity of your position, I have to agree with most of the others that--as a practical matter, voting for someone other than the Dem or GOP candidate at this time in history, could, in a close race, result in someone whose values you most disagree with getting elected. That does not mean there is no value in a protest vote. I suppose if enough people voted for a third-party candidate in a given election, it might encourage more to do so in the next election--a sort of snowball effect. I have often thought that if Perot hadn't been such a quirky guy and picked an even quirkier VP candidate to run with him (who Phil Hartley on SNL mercilessly but hilariously portrayed--remember that?), he might have had a real chance to build a viable third party. But it seems that the quirks always kill those third parties. In the same way that Hillary's Bosnia comment reinforced the sense some have that she has a problem with truthiness, some stuff about Ron Paul that came out fairly or not suggested he was kind of fringy.

I still am going to be interested to see what kind of turnout we see in PA to see if the Dems have hurt themselves with their pretty harsh attacks on each other.

Oh, and since this is a kitchen-sink kind of comment, one more thing. I read mysteries for entertainment, not political advice. I read handyman magazines for practical tips on fixing my house (I never understand em or do em, but I still like to read em.) And I read poetry for pleasure and as a really concentrated way of learning about the world--that is, a few lines of poetry can say more than a 600 page novel or 300 page self-help book. There was talk in this post earlier of the Bible. (I can already sense Piper's blood pressure rising). I would simply say that the Bible is a book that contains a variety of things--for instance, it has parts that are History (much of the OT and the book of Acts in the NT) that, as such, is not necessarily intended to be read as advice; it has of advice (the Proverbs) that is not necessarily to be read as history or science, and a book of songs (the Psalms) which may or may not provide History or advice but is to provide aesthetic pleasure and a means for worshipping God. With all the words in the Bible, it is no surprise that it has and will raise questions and disagreements. But if one is going to consider the Book, it should be considered the same way you approach other texts. (I can hear in my head Elton John singing "Don't let the sun go down on me . . ." I do not reject the song as song simply because it says that the sun is going down. The sun does not go down in a literal sense. But I understand what it means in its context as a song and not scientific advice. And so I do not reject the song because its science is wrong.) Obviously, this is a much more complicated issue, but that is for another place.

Sorry to add another long post. But for those interested in evidence of just how terribly confused our educational leaders and some of their professors and students have become, consider this article from today's Yale Daily News, which is quoted verbatim:

Quote:

For senior, abortion a medium for art, political discourse

Art major Aliza Shvarts ’08 wants to make a statement.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts’ project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock — saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.

But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for “shock value.”

“I hope it inspires some sort of discourse,” Shvarts said. “Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it’s not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone.”

The “fabricators,” or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.
Shvarts declined to specify the number of sperm donors she used, as well as the number of times she inseminated herself.

Art major Juan Castillo ’08 said that although he was intrigued by the creativity and beauty of her senior project, not everyone was as thrilled as he was by the concept and the means by which she attained the result.

“I really loved the idea of this project, but a lot other people didn’t,” Castillo said. “I think that most people were very resistant to thinking about what the project was really about. [The senior-art-project forum] stopped being a conversation on the work itself.”

Although Shvarts said she does not remember the class being quite as hostile as Castillo described, she said she believes it is the nature of her piece to “provoke inquiry.”

“I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity,” Shvarts said. “I think that I’m creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be.”

The display of Schvarts’ project will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts’ self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.

Schvarts will then project recorded videos onto the four sides of the cube. These videos, captured on a VHS camcorder, will show her experiencing miscarriages in her bathrooom tub, she said. Similar videos will be projected onto the walls of the room.

School of Art lecturer Pia Lindman, Schvarts’ senior-project advisor, could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.

Few people outside of Yale’s undergraduate art department have heard about Shvarts’ exhibition. Members of two campus abortion-activist groups — Choose Life at Yale, a pro-life group, and the Reproductive Rights Action League of Yale, a pro-choice group — said they were not previously aware of Schvarts’ project.

Alice Buttrick ’10, an officer of RALY, said the group was in no way involved with the art exhibition and had no official opinion on the matter.
Sara Rahman ’09 said, in her opinion, Shvarts is abusing her constitutional right to do what she chooses with her body.

“[Shvarts’ exhibit] turns what is a serious decision for women into an absurdism,” Rahman said. “It discounts the gravity of the situation that is abortion.”

CLAY member Jonathan Serrato ’09 said he does not think CLAY has an official response to Schvarts’ exhibition. But personally, Serrato said he found the concept of the senior art project “surprising” and unethical.
“I feel that she’s manipulating life for the benefit of her art, and I definitely don’t support it,” Serrato said. “I think it’s morally wrong.”
Shvarts emphasized that she is not ashamed of her exhibition, and she has become increasingly comfortable discussing her miscarriage experiences with her peers.

“It was a private and personal endeavor, but also a transparent one for the most part,” Shvarts said. “This isn’t something I’ve been hiding.”

The official reception for the Undergraduate Senior Art Show will be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on April 25. The exhibition will be on public display from April 22 to May 1. The art exhibition is set to premiere alongside the projects of other art seniors this Tuesday, April 22 at the gallery of Holcombe T. Green Jr. Hall on Chapel Street.

This may be an extreme example of what is happening in Universities across the country, but the mindset that would allow University administrators and professors and students to consider this woman's activities an art project--in the interests of "discourse" and "inquiry", a project that will actually be put on a University-sponsored display, is widespread. This, to me, is what is really scary.

Not to speak for the group, but I guess I mildly resent being considered 'sheep' (did you know that sheep can get really angry and vicious when provoked? ). I am not a blind follower simply because I don't use bumper stickers, bulletin boards and yard signs to promote a non-'mainstream' presidential candidate. I'll vote for one of the candidates who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election, even if I don't like them one bit, because these are the only realistic choices we've been handed. No matter how great an alternative candidate may be, the money supports the big, mainstream parties and will continue to do so. It's like being told to perform surgery with only (a) a hammer or (b) a pair of pliers. Which do you choose? Neither is 'right' for the job, but one can do more damage than the other, and those are the only tools we have. Either way, we know the outcome isn't going to be what we would like. Having additional realistic choices would come at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars that far exceed the combined assets of everyone on the BBI Bulletin Board.

JEE likes Ron Paul. I guess I do, too (from what I've seen), but there is simply no chance he'd win... even if every 'sheeperson' on this board gets all fired up and plasters their homes and cars and selves with Ron Paul paraphernalia. JEE says we are irresponsible when we, the sheeple, "choose" mainstream candidates over Ron Paul... I'd argue instead that we are trying to steer the political battleship one more degree toward port or starboard, rather than throwing our vote overboard to swim for land in the distance.

(I think I need a life preserver to save me from all of these metaphors.)

If people like JEE feel empowered to elect the person who really and truly has our best interests at heart, why not look beyond Ron Paul? I'm absolutely certain there's an even better prospective candidate out there - we just have to find her or him, and according to this same logic, it's irresponsible of us not to be searching the countryside for that person who would best represent our interests. The only reason we haven't heard of that person is because they didn't have as much money backing their campaigns as Ron Paul did. So, in spite of all his virtues, Ron Paul is guilty of subscribing to the same formula that Hillary, Obama and McCain used - except he wasn't as successful at it. And his followers are just as sheep-ish. The problem isn't bipartisan politics; it's that we rely on salient, flashy campaigns to tell us who's out there. As for me, I'd rather vote for someone who doesn't have the money these folks (including Ron Paul) have to promote themselves, but doing so would be throwing away my only chance to help steer the battleship where I want it to go.

To make a long story longer, let this little lost sheep ramble on for another moment about following the 'herd'. My Dad was a Republican. He always voted Republican. While I cannot speak for him, if he were alive today, I suspect he would be infuriated by our occupation of Iraq, and would curse about GWB non-stop. But then, come this year, he'd be voting Republican again. Would he be considered a blind follower of a particular party... or would he be a blind follower if, like so many people, he voted for an alternative candidate because he thought it would magically make everything better?

That's a hypothetical question, in case you couldn't tell. What I really wanted to say was that my Dad didn't teach me to be a Republican, and I'm not. He taught me to respect other people and beliefs, and to do what I think is right. It took a long time, but I also learned not to judge other people when their political, religious or social behaviors differed from my own. Hence my resentment of the 'sheep' classification... We all have our individual, personal, unique reasons for our beliefs, votes, etc. My choices and beliefs don't align perfectly with any political party or candidate. I suspect JEE and Ron Paul would disagree on a number of topics, too, yet (forgive me John) John seems to think this one candidate is the answer... that he is able to rise above sheepdom because he sees what I can't.

Again, if you want to challenge the establishment, challenge it. Green party, independent party, aluminum foil party, nonpartisan, whatever... If you learned your favorite candidate's name because she or he spent millions of dollars to put their own mug on TV, lawn signs and bumper stickers, then they're part of the same establishment you hate so much. Write in a vote for the farmer who knows the value of hard work and has seen the business end of a failing economy. Write in a vote for the abused mother who has to take on a second job and hide her money from her gambling husband to keep the kids fed. These people can't afford to fund their own presidential campaigns, yet they probably come a lot closer to representing the general populace than Obama, Hillary, McCain or Paul.

And they're not realistic choices, so we have to operate in reality. Our ship will veer gradually left or right because a powerful, well-funded Democrat or a Republican will be elected. Jumping ship would show everybody that we aren't happy with the direction we're going, but it wouldn't change our direction.

Apparently, I have a congenital inability to make a point in fewer than 5,000 words and 14 metaphors.

The only boat I really want to be on is called the Kristen D, and I like the direction it's going.

It's like being told to perform surgery with only (a) a hammer or (b) a pair of pliers. Which do you choose? Neither is 'right' for the job, but one can do more damage than the other, and those are the only tools we have.

I think that very succinctly explains the position of many of us in the "hold your nose and vote" club.

So, although the Antichrist will leave the impression that his motivating force is love, concern for humanity, and pity for the oppressed, what drives Antichrist is not love but hatred. The one motivating force in his life is opposition to Jesus Christ, opposition to all that He stands for, and to all that stand for Him

.

I hope this explains the "anti-christ" comment. I feel obama's book excerpts fit the definition. and no i am not ****ting.

losing good jobs to "Affirmative Action" for no other reason than minority quota. Now take Affirmative Action from a local government standpoint to NATIONAL government. SO sad for the white boy. I think his book excerpts can give any one a glimmer as to the future of the white guy!
Young people are standing by him because he is a good speaker, kind of like the speeches during the hippie days. Hope and Change, like a mini revolution-with a sinister twist. Yet the hippies spoke the truth, so high they couldn't lie!!!!!There's an idea, give the candidates truth serum or LSD and see how they answer questions in a debate! I'd pay to watch that!!!

I have nothing against getting the job on qualifications, but not based on race or wealth. That goes for ANY job including president.
It seems the only qualifications for president are 1. who can waste the largest sum of money campaigning and 2. who can smile and spread the BS the thickest. Unfortunately there are no tests to pass just have to have millions of $. And Hillary, she should be president because uh..her husband was? At least if McCain won (and I am not for him) he's old and maybe the vice president would take over after a stressful event!
The candidate that takes the millions of dollars spent on campaigning and divides that amongst the poor/middle class general population will get my vote. Other than that the whole process is a general attempt to make us think we have a say about our government. (ha ha) One of those warm, fuzzy feeling notions. Still hold to the cute, nice voice theory. But this time, there are no candidates that even win that! Maybe I'll vote by vice-presidential choice.
As much as we blame the republicans, we have a democrat for a governor and look at the mess Michigan is in. She must be a closet republican.
I think we, as a group, are so fed up and beaten down- we are looking for a president with half a brain and combining all three contenders still can't come up with it. Run Toto Run. Time to call in the Wizard of Oz. And maybe that is Ron Paul. If everyone who said it is a throw away vote, voted for him, he might win! Wouldn't that be a hoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by the way, "right on" and 'power to the people"!!!What ever happened to that? _________________I'll have a cafe, mocha, vodka, vallium latte to go please.....

Last edited by GonnaGetaway on Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

Yes Dan, your post is well stated and much more to the point of what we've been discussing here, than Doug's unsolicited piece (of sh*t) on abortion as art. I don't see how he thinks that some nut-job's deranged interpretation of what constitutes art has any relevance to this thread. (If in fact the story is true, and since it came from Doug, I would certainly not accept it on 'faith' alone) In Doug's world, it's the educated people who are the problem. Apparently, Doug's post is another weak attempt at portraying educational establishments as part of some fringe ideology. I think it's because educated people such as scientists and college professors continually poll in the 75-95% non-believer range. Nice try though Doug.

I wonder why Doug's god would allow such behavior by one of his creations. Oh, that's right, it must be the antichrist again. How silly of me.

Again Dan, well said. I always look forward to reading your posts. You have a clear, concise, writing style and you somehow manage to avoid casting stones to make your point. ( A skill I have yet to master. )_________________West End Piper

Great post, Dan Reynolds. One clarification, I don't use the term "sheep" or "sheeple" to refer to people's support of a party, but rather people that follow the same governmental mismanagement, unconstitutional, illegal actions of our 'elected leaders" and seem to have no clue that they are being led down the ....well....sheep path.

Apathy is sheepdom. Follow the sheep in front of you. Don't look beyond the Boob Tube for any other side of a story. Accept the government as the benevolent mother....that is being sheep. Although Ron Paul will not be elected president, that doesn't mean we, the people, cannot fight for our constitutional rights. Sheep won't do that. They are happy with the status quo and won't say BAAAAA until it is too late.

I don't care what people call me for supporting a long shot. But I know this, I am not following the herd. And what is the herd getting us, Dan? Wars, insurmountable debt, losses of freedoms, losses of jobs, losses of infrastructure, losses in education, losses in health care, increased prices on fuel and food, because the SHEEP in this country follow the herd, the Federal Governments/media/corporate agenda. In fact, it is every citizens DUTY, RESPONSIBILITY to speak out against a corrupt government when indeed that is the case. Sheep aren't citizens, they are subjects. Our founding fathers would throw up at the apathy of US citizens. I am as much a sheep as the rest of the citizens in many ways, but, I don't have to keep my mouth shut and follow this madness into oblivion quietly. I speak out and maybe that offends you. Tough. Sitting quietly by and eating my kerds and whey won't encourage my fellow Americans to think outside the box. You want to stay quiet, fine. Stay quiet, otherwise you might disturb the sheep.

You, Doug, and others follow our "government" like sheep. I haven't read one thing from Doug, or you that calls our leaders on the carpet for the lies, the mismanagement, the corruption of our government. Leaders being our entire 457? federal elected officials. All of them. Not Republicans, Democrats, independents but all of our federal government.

One more thing Dan, when you lump Ron Paul along side HC, BO, JM it tells me you KNOW nothing abut Ron Paul. Nothing. He is so far from their agendas, only in "not knowing" could you include him as "one of them".

That said, I am looking forward to toasting another season with the wisest people on earth...the island lovers of BBI._________________"Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got 'till it's gone.

Last edited by John Elmer Engel on Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:28 am; edited 1 time in total

by the way, "right on" and 'power to the people"!!!What ever happened to that?

It's always good to hear from another old hippie... which I assume you to be by suggesting the "candidates" debate one another on Acid. I wonder if we would be able to tell?

I have been back listening to early 70's 'Nam era tunes lately. Buffalo Springfields "For what it's worth" and "We're on the eve of destruction", Country Joe and the Fish ' And it's one-two three... what are we fightin for", etc. Good old solid protest tunes of that era.

Scary how history seems to repeat itself. And that those lyrics have as much value today as they did 40 years ago. Maybe more.

Some of us remember all too well.

... and don't be a bummer (or boag)... and don't trust anyone over the age of 30... and tune in, turn on and drop out.

This thread began as a criticism of this country's leaders. In agreeing with much of that criticism, I added that the problem goes beyond political leaders. Now maybe some here don't believe that certain leaders of America's Educational Institutions are part of the problem, but criticism of them as well as criticisms of leaders of corporations and unions and others who impact life in the US is absolutely relevant to a thread criticizing America's leaders.

Consequently, an article from today's Yale Daily News (cited so anyone interested could easily find it) that indicates that the leaders of Yale and some of its professors and students appear to endorse behavior that most people find seriously troubling is relevant to the thread.

The point I made in my post was not that a "deranged nut job" would consider it art; the point was that ivy league college faculty and administrators who should know better than to allow a young college-age woman to induce miscarriages, film the miscarriages, save and display the blood, etc., etc., all in the name of art and "discourse"--apparently did not know better and so are failing its students and this country. And this is not some podunk college, but one that is considered by many the best university in America.

I included it to support the point that it is not just political leaders we should be concerned about when thinking about America's future, but others as well. It won't do much good to have a great political leader if all the leaders of our colleges and corporations and unions, etc., are failing us. That point is relevant to this thread. And because the thread was begun by JEE, responses were in fact solicited--so the comment is not "unsolicited."

Concerning that, "In Doug's world, its the educated people who are the problem . . ." quote, not quite sure what the basis for that is. Having spent much of my life since high school attending and/or teaching at MSU, U of M, Grand Valley and elsewhere, it just so happens that I appreciate, respect and spend much time with well-educated people. And I am fortunate to have had a well-educated woman choose to marry me. I read lots of books by well-educated folks and converse with some of them on this website. So, I have never considered educated people, per se, the problem. But some of them, like some uneducated people, certainly can be the problem. On the other hand, in my experience, lots of people without much formal education are smarter, wiser, and more intuitive than some who have been confused by a bad formal education.

Thank you. Dan! there is a song in your words, ya know.. Doug, your most open minded words I've heard from you yet.. The educators slant, I'm not following yet but you put yourself out there... I agree the art/abortion crap is just that.. I think younguns reach for the freak because of a need for new because all the good stuff has been done already.. It's been going on for eons.. Every generation forces a change.. Some more than others.. This is such a passionate topic! 3Putt, I feel your anger... Go easy.. GonnaGetAway, your opinion is just as valid as the next guy.. Absorbing the wide range of political opinions and offered information has been eye opening, entertaining and educational.. I ought to send a link to all the candidates.. Do you think they would check us out?

JEE and I are probably as different as two fellow islanders could be, but he is spot on with regard to bringing about real political change. If you don't like the direction the country is taking and want to bring about real change voting for a mainstream candidate is a wasted vote. A Ross Perot type candidate has to elected at some point in order to restructure the rogue system we complain about. They will not change on their own.

The word party implies a preexisting allegiance to something other than the majority. It is unconstitutional for a politician to vote along party lines if it conlicts with the majority of the people he or she represents. Yet we all know how they vote.

JEE and I are probably as different as two fellow islanders could be, but he is spot on with regard to bringing about real political change. If you don't like the direction the country is taking and want to bring about real change voting for a mainstream candidate is a wasted vote. A Ross Perot type candidate has to elected at some point in order to restructure the rogue system we complain about. They will not change on their own.

I totally agree... but how do you get over the hump to actually elect someone off the radar. And that is the caveat. Short of a win, it is a tip.

What do we need here? Riots in the streets? Civil disobediance?

I understand the relevance to Doug's post re over the top "art". In some(old school) circles that would be considered "conceptual art". This isn't art. It is the sickest form of pornography. Sick. And that's where things have landed trying to get noticed as an "artist". Go hang that on the wall. And this is how demented things have gotten.

Things have gotten too twisted. The gal who did that must be warped inside out with no clue of normal as defined by society. Who is to blame her. She is friggin LOST.

Actually, Doug, this thread started out as a warning because our leaders are threatening to "bomb, bomb, bomb......bomb, bomb Iran." I started with that because I am afraid that the sheep, er, ah the citizens of this country will buy into the propaganda machine...again.

I liked your post, Doug, about the craziness of the world, in this case, the world of education. That art project makes me sick. It is repulsive. I do not approve. The teacher is in a tough spot. Our constitution protects the freedom to express ourselves. As disgusting as it is. And you are appalled by this art project and the direction our higher educational institutions seem to be moving. If I understand you correctly. But this girl is only hurting herself. She is not hurting my body. She is not forcing me to do the same. Yet, you support our government in an unconstitutional war where young people's bodies are maimed beyond description. Isn't that repulsive to you? Our gov. forces their illegal art projects on innocent victims. Yet you agree with our government. Now that is a contradiction.

Rich, thanks for the note. We can carry on a conversation and learn from each other. I believe that our country can do the same thing...such as actually talk with Iran's leader (can't spell it, can't pronounce it) regardless of how different we may be. Words not weapons._________________"Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got 'till it's gone.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot post calendar events in this forum